by Neville Kennard, veteran preaching and practising capitalist

Would you rather live in a democratic regime that taxed 50% of the Gross National Product (that is, took half of what people earned) while giving the semblance of freedom under the guise of “democracy,” or would you rather an authoritarian non-democratic regime where only 20% (or less) of your earnings and spending was taken? Or even where none of your income or property was appropriated by the regime?

Would you rather live where you had a substantial amount of personal economic clout, but not much political clout; or one where you had a struggle for economic clout and freedom, but where you could vote on things political?

Hong Kong, the Special Economic Region of China, is an example of authoritarian economic freedom, while the welfare states of Europe are examples of political freedom.

Hong Kong thrives while Old Europe struggles. Hong Kong ranks #1 on the Heritage Foundation’s Economic Freedom Index.

China allows Hong Kong to continue, more or less, with the British Colonial dictum of positive non-interventionism in its economy. And while there is a degree of political representation in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council, it remains politically authoritarian and determinedly capitalist: you could perhaps call Hong Kong financially democratic, but politically authoritarian.

Another place of authoritarian freedom is Singapore. Low taxes, property rights, free trade, ever-growing prosperity, but some restraints on political and personal freedom (chewing gum, for example, is banned in Singapore). Now would you rather live and work and keep most of your earnings in Singapore, and go without chewing gum and some constraints in regard to criticising the regime, or be free to chew and spit while paying half your earnings and spending in taxes in a European Union country? Singapore ranks #2 in the World Economic Freedom Index.

Democracy worship is the religion of the times. There are wars and invasions to make the world safe for democracy, mostly some sort of imposed democracy. For the repressed parts of the world, “democracy” seems like a dream, and in many ways such a political and economic state will be a huge leap forward. People, with a fair degree of property rights, with a good degree of self-ownership, will start being responsible for much of their lives — something denied in many countries with repressive regimes and dictators who want to keep most of the money and most of the power to themselves and their cronies.

There is room for many different types of political and economic models. Those that give the most economic freedom tend to prosper; people migrate and work and live in such places, taking their skills and their capital to where it is respected. More such places are needed in the world to compete for talent and capital. Some of these may be classified as authoritarian in a political sense, but libertarian, capitalist and free-market in an economic sense. The more competition between regimes, the more trustworthy and honest the rest will have to become.

We need more free trade zones, more tax havens, more Hong Kongs, Singapores, Dubais, Monacos, Lichtensteins. What we need more of is different models offering what people want, competing in a free-market for capital and talent. This will start to freeze out the Social Democracies and Welfare States, until they have little alternative to reform. And if some of those new capital and tax and enterprise havens are somewhat authoritarian, well so be it. People can choose to go there or not. The market will sort it out. And the politicians of the so-called social democracies will hate it.